RESPONSE: You're trying to get a lot of mileage from my misreading of a stat. But, it doesn't change the facts...which are that Manning has a losing record in the playoffs...and that, in his losses, he managed to put up a feeble 13.6 points per game.As for your accusation that I purposely misstated the stat, thats a lie. But, go on and play your linguistic little games if you wish. Playing that up for all its' worth is all you have to offer.

Response response - sorry liar - you actually stated it correctly the first time you posted it then intentionally miswrote it 4 times after. Don't play dumb. I only play it because I want the board to know your methods.

RESPONSE: That too would be a lie. The Pats dominated that game, from start to finish...and won 20-3...not by the skin of their teeth.

response response - of course they did the pats db's treated the colts wideouts like your boyfriend treats you.

Incidently, the officiating so so bad in the Colts' 2006 "win", that the NFL sent the Patriots a letter of apology for the Hobbs PI call...which handed Indy a TD.

response response - the refs were so bad in this game that the NFL agreed that the rule needed to be reemphasized. I'd call that more than an apology.

1. If Manning is so bad, how did he pick us apart in the second half of the 2006 AFCCG? And how was Brady so unable to sustain drives in that game (we had to go for it on 4th on both of our sustained drives).

If you recall, the Pats were substituting so many players in the 4th quarter of that game on D they could barely keep there starters on the field. The Pats, as a team, didn't use it as an excuse, but, they were a pretty sick team, health wise, in that game.

2. If Brady is so great, what happened in the Super Bowl? The Jints only scored 17 points. If you want my opinion, it was his ankle or whatever injury. Some of his passes were uncharacteristically inaccurate.[/Quote]

Brady DID lead the Pats to a go ahead score late in the 4th. The Pats D gave up TWO 4th quarter TD's to the Giants. The Giants D was on fire that game, I don't think any other QB could have done what Brady did. Also, Pats' coaches failed to adjust for the way the Giant's D played.

"In the eight playoff losses during the Manning era, the Colts have averaged a measly 13.6 points per game. All of those losses came with (OC Tom) Moore at the helm.

Now here are 4 subsequent TP posts in this thread attempting to use the same stat but apply it to all games.

1.has been able to muster only a disgraceful 13.6 points per playoff game...2.and that he has led his vaunted offense to less than 2 TDs per playoff game...3.and has "led" his team to less than 2 TDs per game, for each playoff game?...4.His record in the playoffs is a concrete fact...as is the 13.6 points per game average per playoff game

Talk about deceptive tactics. Texas Pat are you one of those people who gets a handicap tag, but has no real disability? You argue like it.

As I said, people know me here. I leave it with them to decide if your false accusation that I initentionally lied to make Manning look worse has anny truth to it. After all, if that were my plan, why would I bother stating the correct statement...that Manning has put up 13.6 points per game in his 8 playoff losses...to begin with?

Go on and push this for all you can. The facts remain that Manning is an overrated choke artist, with a losing record in playoff games...and who has performed poorly in all playoff losses (as evidenced by the less than 2TDs per game average).

I keep hearing about how Manning has performed so abysmally in all those rousing Colts playoff losses, but I thought it was worth mentioning that he didn't play all that well in the post-season the year the Colts actually won the Super Bowl. I wouldn't mind Colts apologist going to such extravagant lengths to defend Manning's poor play when the Colts lose if he didn't go to such Brobdignagian lengths to strew rose petals in his path whenever the Colts win.

Why would the greatest QB of all-time with an 18 point lead and 31 minutes to play not be able to win a critical game against an overhyped underachieving team in a dome where he plays better? - Because, sometimes it just happens. Same goes for manning.

First of all, the Colts were playing the backups from NE's defense. Still, Manning had a great half...the onlyone in the entire playoff run that year. And I agree thatsometimes it happens. Yet Tom Brady is 14-3 in the playoffs, that means it's happened to him 18% of the time. Peyton, on the other hand is 7-8, so it "happens" to him 53% of the time! If this "hapening" was merelythe "law of averages" applying itself, wouldn't these numbers be a bit more even? And if Brady (or even Cassel) needed two yards to seal the game on 3rd down they would have run for it if the WRs were as covered as you say. The facts are clear, Manning has had numerous "stellar" 4th quarter comebacks, yet all but one have been in the regular season against mostly losing teams. This to me doesn't seem to merit the amount of "worship" that the pundits and the admen seem to bestow upon him. Thus the conclusion that he is "overrated". You and Tex ought to go to law school and become attorneys! There have been more "technicalities" brought up in this thread than at the OJ trial! But the "irrefutable" facts are that Peyton Manning has had a disappointing end to the season in all but one of his years in the league. If you take all his postseason games into consideration he has played well below the standard he has set for himself in the regular season. You can twist words until the 09 season starts, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, there's a 99% chance it IS a duck!

1. If Manning is so bad, how did he pick us apart in the second half of the 2006 AFCCG? And how was Brady so unable to sustain drives in that game (we had to go for it on 4th on both of our sustained drives).

That defense was a shell of what it was even a few games before. Who were the DBs and ILBs late in that game?There was no pressure in the second half, and no competent player to cover Dallas Clark.

2. If Brady is so great, what happened in the Super Bowl? The Jints only scored 17 points. If you want my opinion, it was his ankle or whatever injury. Some of his passes were uncharacteristically inaccurate.

Greatness is measured by how often you win under duress. FWIW, any other QB would have prolly tossed 2-3 picks in that game and NY would have run over them. Ankle? Maybe. But NY was generating pressure with three men even dropping a DE. It was a great performance by the Giants, simlar to 1991 when the Giants keptMontana from attempting his three-pete in the NFC Champsionship.

Brady is so great, because his overall record 15-3 is stellar. And a lot of those games he carried his offense.

Who is he trying to fool? You? We all know what he means when he writes that. It isn't changing the fact that it is in losses only. The debate topic has been set for soooooo long anyone who is still even following Manning thread IV knows the score by now.

It really just looks like you are nitpicking here, just take a break for while bro. This has got to be hell on the blood pressure.

Second, the protection wasn't set to catch a blitz. The protection was a H-back, he was lined up, at the last second the linebacker pulls across the line and blitzes while Manning is looking at his receivers.

NE does it to Manning all the time. It isn't a secret that he thinks poorly on his feet, but well before the play, so if you disguise your pressure you make him a far worse player.

Second, Wayne is open. If the ball is on time, the game ends. It is a high percentage pass that Brady makes on a weekly basis. I have watched too much football from all angles to look at that as a failure of anyone butthe QB. And for that matter it doesn't address the woeful performance the rest of the game, inculding a host of 2 and outs and 5 and outs, that kill the feild position game.

If Ne performed in that game in that fashion I would be blaming the offense all the way.

He needs two yards and it is obvious that he was fooled into thinking the pressure was coming from the right side of the defense when it was coming left side.

Bottom line is when you need two yards the ball should be out of your hand (like Dungy said) as soon as it is snapped into your hands.

TP - I am just stating facts - you noted a stat then changed it in a later post to make Manning look worse and then stuck with your altered incorrect stat in 3 subsequent posts. The evidence is on this thread unless you have deleted it.

When it was brought to you attention, rather than addressing it, you changed back to the original correct stat on 2 separate occassions. Only when I pressed you on it did you respond.

This means only 2 things. One you were either so embarrassed by your mistake you did not want to admit it so you tried to cover it by restating correctly (by the way, we know you conced nothing so this could be a possibility) or you intentionally did it and deceptively tried to get away with it.

The fact is you didn't play your arguement straight and you were caught. You're a cheat like your coach.

Bub - my statement was only intended for TP. I accept that Brady got beat just as Manning has many more times than Brady. The point is great QB's lose games too. The good news for pats fans is that you have been fortunate to have lost far fewer than my team.

Z- you clearly know more football than me, so I will attempt not to argue with you. However, I saw that play differently. Have heard the HB say he missed his assignment. Don't agree that Wayne was open (at least not after his cut). Don't think Wayne was the primary receiver because he was deeper than clark but only by a couple of yards. By the time Manning could have gotten the ball to Wayne (after his cut), he was down.

Just the way I see the play. I understand you do not agree.

As for TP - I understand you and everyone else will give him a pass, but I don't have to. He was overly gloating on another thread about the colts loss in the playoffs when his team didn't even make it. He has attempted to discredit me and my opinion with whatever means necessary. This is a word board and words matter. If he can't get a stat right then he needs to admit it. Otherwise, we can make up whatever we want here until someone proves us wrong. No one was interested in check his so-called facts but me. It mattered.

Not that is matters, but it sounds like you are. You are entitled to your opinion.

I just want to know what happened in those two games.

Why? What's the point? And more importantly why are you asking me? You obviously have your own ideas about what happened, so why is it important that I weigh in on it?

Are you saying what Manning did, putting up 32 points in one half, isn't impressive because we had a lot of backups playing?

Yes. Even my friends who were with me that day and are Colts fans think that. They didn't
face NE at it's best. I don't see how that can be argued. That said,
the Colts played a heck of a contest, but no facing a handful of no-names isn't the same thing. Sorry if you disagree.

If our backups are that bad, well, our team is that bad.

Come again??? So NE's offensive receiver group is only as good as Kelly Washington and Sam Aiken? So if we lost Moss and Welker you wouldn't bat an eyelash, because the backups should be just as good?

You already said Brady's ankle was hurt in the SB. So the Pats are only as good as an injured Brady? Surely in the SB he should have been able to make something happen despite his ankle right?

That doesn't even makes sense as a platitude. A team is as good as what it puts on the field on any given day yes, but the defensive starters who are supposed to be there are the measuring stick. Just like a healthy Brady who can move is the measuring stick for the performance in the Superbowl. Otherwise, we can say our team is as good as its practice sqad, and that simply isn't true.

If Ne beat an Indy team without Manning and Wayne it would be really hollow for me, because it wouldn't be beating them at their best. You can disagree and say that Sorgi and Gonzalez should be just as good. But I won't agree.

You didn't answer why Brady couldn't lead more than 2 sustained drives in that game. Was the Colts D that good that year? Granted, all of our running backs except Heath Evans suddenly became inept.

I most certainly did. You measure a QB by the body of work. Not one game. You take them all and weigh how he has performed on average. Brady's greatness isn't relying on that game or last year's Superbowl
because he had done it so many times. No one player wins every game. No
one player is "on" enough to win all the time. The question is . . .who
is on the most often in their career? Hence it was one day when Brady
didn't get the bear. It is Ok. It really doesn't bother me, because I
know as long as 12 is back there NE has a fighting chance to win. He
proved that much that season simply by getting an offense with Reche Caldwell as its number one receiver and as far as he did.

The knock on Manning is that he frequently folds up against quality defense. He did little to dispell that knock in that postseason. Trying to paralell three Pats playoff losses with eight Colts playoff losses doesn't really work because one is a trend and the other an abberation.

Other than that what are you arguing about? And why do you keep addressing posts to me out of the four or five people going at it in this thread?

In the Super Bowl, regardless of how great the Giants D was, how come Brady couldn't overcome it? He should have been able to overcome it. You don't think he was injured?

No I don't think the injury played a major part in his movement. Perhaps it effected his accuracy, but there is no way of knowing. The whole offense didn't perform the way it should have that game. And yes, sometimes you just get beated. That day they were all beaten, but specifically the offensive line, and the WR who allowed themselves to get shoved around at the line. And lastly Brady didn't play his best game, but he played better than anyone else on the offensive eleven.

If I had to say one thing, it would be that the OL was not focused. They were trading barbs all week with NYG DE's and DT's about who was dirty,and what not. Their interviews (especially Light) looked like they were cocky. They got smacked up hard.

More importantly I don't understand what you are getting at here? Do you want to sit here and break down two of Brady's three losses in eighteen playoff appearances? Be my guest.

-- "As for TP - I understand you and everyone else will give him a pass, but I don't have to. He was overly gloating on another thread about the colts loss in the playoffs when his team didn't even make it. He has attempted to discredit me and my opinion with whatever means necessary. This is a word board and words matter. If he can't get a stat right then he needs to admit it. Otherwise, we can make up whatever we want here until someone proves us wrong. No one was interested in check his so-called facts but me. It mattered." --

Underdogg,

I think maybe the reason no one was interested in checking his "so-called" facts but you is because you two have turned this thread into your own personal pissing contest and, speaking only for myself, rerquiring absolute accuracy would seriously undermine the entertainment value of the thread, which is its only appeal to me. Plus besides, stats can be contrived, manipulated, edited, ignored or otherwise confabulated to support or refute any outlandish claim you care to make. I like stand in a wheat field in Kansas and insist the earth is flat. Have I not eyes? Can I not see? But maybe that's just me. The point is that the very premise of this thread is nebulous, or at the very least subjective, and if I remember correctly (I'm certainly not going to read through all this nonsense again) you were the one that pointed out that Manning's "rating" is a matter of perspective and there is not universal agreement on where Manning should be in the pantheon of NFL quarterbacks. Who is doing all this over-rating and under-rating? Damned if I know . . . or care. Ultimately there is no winning or losing this argument. Neither one of you guys is likely to concede anything and for those of us who are mildly amused by the incessant "No I didn't"! "Yes you did!" the only question left is: Which one of you realizes he has better things to ?o first.

Ladies and gentleman...particularly those who post here regularly...I wish to apologize to you for the following mistake which I made in reporting a statistic...specifically that the Colts averaged 13.6 points per playoff game (of which they played (15), when the correct stat was 13.6 points PER LOSS (of which there are 8). This mistake was not made intentionally to mislead or support my position the Peyton Manning is the ultimate in choke artists.

As many of you probably know, the poster who calls himself "Underdogg" and I have been sparring for quite some time. Now he is attempting to use this to mistake I made to smear my rep on this forum. I'll leave it to you to decide.

Dogg claims that I purposefully misrepresented the stat in order to gain additional leverage in my argument with him. Yet, even he acknowledges that I initially did mention the stat correctly, before I erroneously misquoted it...as discussed above. Why would I do that if my intention were to mislead or misrepresent?

When the mistake came to my attention, I was embarrassed by it, corrected it, and carried on. But now, since he Dogg is using it to challenge my credibility, let me assure all of you that I did not intentionally lie or misrepresent.

In any event, I apologize to you-all, and even to the Dogg, for my mistake.

Calm down. I was just asking for your analysis of those two games because I haven't heard it before, and you're clearly the most knowledgeable poster on here. No need to get all defensive.
So it sounds like you're just saying Brady had a bad day in the AFCCG, putting up 32 points against our defense's backups isn't impressive, and in the Super Bowl our O-Line and wide receivers got beat at the line of scrimmage. If that's all you have to say, fine, I just thought you could break down those games and it would be fun to discuss.

I felt a little blindsided, as the topic was Manning and usually when it slips over the other way you expect an arguement of some sort.

No I never said Manning was awful, andyone who thinks he is awful hasn't been watching football very long. I don't think beating the backups tarnishes his record, it just doesn't help it. That entire postseason doesn't help it very much. He threw 3 tds and 7 Ints IIRC. Logically, any QB in the top fifteen playing could have been the benefactor that post-season.

In the AFC Champsionship of 2006 the Pats didn't have it as a team. They were injured and lacked playmakers in their WR and DB area. I think Brady was great that game, just me. He had to fight through a lot. I tend not to think about the penalties, because it is out of NE's control. Caldwell not hanging on to that one was a ball breaker though.

I am sure he wants that 3rd and 4 back, but there were numerous dunderheaded moves by the rest of the team so that it makes it hard to think you can blame Brady for not putting up 39 points -- TBC's needless roughing the passer, Caldwell, James Sander's whiffing on a Dallas Clark tackle and coverage for a 53 yard gain, Evans' 12th man penalty, etc, etc.

He was worse in the Superbowl, but it is hard to figure how much was him, and how much was five sacks, 12 hits and 18 hurries (IIRC). Yeah, he missed some wide open guys, but there were also three procederal penalties and two holding calls on the OL (IIRC) that kept knocking NE back.

And there was a monumental wish-like stubborness by McDaniels to keep trying for the coup de grace. Moss was open up top, and they kept trying to drop Brady seven steps to find him. It wasn't working because the pressure was so intense up the middle. And it was an awful type of pressure because you can't beat a four man rush.

I kept saying that they should have been rolling him away from the pocket like the 49ers used to do with Montana when things got hairy, and maybe start some short outs and slants, but they kept chugging away.

At the end of the game my mother was in tears because they wouldn't take him out and he was taking a hellacious beating.

I can't help but think it was a perfect storm for NJ's defense. Most often when players come that hard they wear down, but NJ had pro-bowl DEs on the bench that season. So they could shuffle them in and out and keep em fresh.